#23-221 In re Andres R., S282054. (E079972; 94 Cal.App.5th 828; Riverside County Superior Court; RIJ2200411.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order in a juvenile dependency proceeding. Petition for review granted; briefing deferred: 11/15/2023 The petition for review is granted. Further
#23-159 In re Robert F., S279743. (E080073; 90 Cal.App.5th 492; Riverside County Superior Court; SWJ1900756.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order in a juvenile proceeding. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in In re Ja.O., S280572 (#23-153), which presents
#23-189 In re Delila D., S281447. (E080389; 93 Cal.App.5th 953; Riverside County Superior Court; RIJ118579.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal conditionally reversed an order in a juvenile dependency proceeding. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in In re Ja.O., S280572 (#23-153),
#24-148 Lopez v. Dayton, S285689. (A168458; nonpublished opinion; Contra Costa County Superior Court; C2100204.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Gutierrez v. Tostado, S283128 (#24-59), which presents the
#25-301 Pelascini v. Airstream, Inc., S291386. (A169686; nonpublished opinion; Solano County Superior Court; CU2301803.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order in a civil action and remanded with directions. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Lathrop v. Thor Motor
#25-299 CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court, S292005. (F088569; 112 Cal.App.5th 872; Fresno County Superior Court; 19CECG03266.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., S289305
#25-40 The Comedy Store v. Moss Adams LLP, S288469. (B327404; 106 Cal.App.5th 784; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 22SMCV01463.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action and remanded for further proceedings. The court ordered briefing deferred pending
#25-92 Pitt v. Metropolitan Tower Life Ins. Co., S289376. (9th Cir. No. 23-55566; 129 F.4th 583; Southern District of California; No. 3:20-cv-00694-RSH-DEB.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in
#23-135 Olympic & Georgia Partners, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, S280000. (B312862; 90 Cal.App.5th 100; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC707591.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case
#22-282 Iloff v. LaPaille, S275848. (A163503, A163504; 80 Cal.App.5th 427; Humboldt County Superior Court; CV2000529.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issues: (1)
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
GMSR represents insurers on appeal effectively and efficiently. We also collaborate with our clients and trial counsel on strategy for coverage, contribution and bad faith litigation before appeals begin.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.